Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentTaylor, Yahweh and the Sun, pp. 37-40 (Hazor), pp. 58-66 (other figurines). The quotation is from p. 66. 13. The case for the cult stand was

http://jot.sagepub.com/Testament

Journal for the Study of the Old

http://jot.sagepub.com/content/21/71/89The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/030908929602107107

1996 21: 89Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentSteve A. Wiggins

Yahweh : the God of Sun?

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

found at: can beJournal for the Study of the Old TestamentAdditional services and information for

http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jot.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on May 3, 2011jot.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jot.sagepub.com/

http://jot.sagepub.com/content/21/71/89

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jot.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


89-

YAHWEH : THE GOD OF SUN?

Steve A. WigginsNashotah House, 2777 Mission Road, Nashotah, WI 53058, USA

In the course of researching the nature of the Ugaritic sun goddess,’ I I

have investigated several studies which argue for solar aspects of Yahwehworship in the Hebrew Bible. The idea of Yahweh’s special relationshipwith the sun in modern study of the Hebrew Scriptures appears early incritical studies,~ perhaps fuelled by ancient records such as Ezek. 8.16.The idea has been taken up by many scholars seeking to understandvarious aspects of Israelite/Judahite religion from the earliest stages up tothe time of the Qumran community.’ Some scholars have taken the ideaof solar worship in ancient Israel a step further to see in it a solar under-standing of Yahweh: they claim that Israel’s God was worshipped as thesun.4That solar worship in some respect was part of the religious life of the

1. See my ’Shapsh, Lamp of the Gods’, in J.B. Lloyd, N. Wyatt and W.G.E.Watson (eds.), Ugarit: Religion and Culture. Proceedings of the Edinburgh 1994Conference (Festschrift J.C.L. Gibson; Munster: Ugarit Verlag, forthcoming).

2. See for example, C.R. Conder, ’Sun Worship in Syria’, PEFQS 1881,pp. 80-84, or K. Vollers, ’Die solare Seite des alttestamentlichen Gottesbegiiffes’,ARW 9 (1906), pp. 176-84, and their references.

3. M. Smith, ’Helios in Palestine’, EI 16 (1982), pp. 199-214; and ’The Case ofthe Gilded Staircase’, BAR 10.5 (1984), pp. 50-55. See also the response byJ. Milgrom, ’Challenge to Sun-Worship Interpretation of Temple Scroll’s GildedStaircase’, BAR 11.1 (1985), pp. 70-72.

4. H.-P. Stähli, Solare Elemente in Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments (OBO,66; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985);J.G. Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for SunWorship in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 111; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); and ’WasYahweh Worshipped as the Sun?’, BAR 20.3 (1994), pp. 52-61, 90-91.



90

ancient Near East is beyond question. That Yahweh was actuallyworshipped as a solar deity is questionable. How sound are these asser-tions of Yahweh’s alleged solar nature’? A speculative leap is required tomove from suggesting the possibility of solar worship in ancient Israel tothe identification of its national deity with the sun. A related question sug-gests itself: is describing a deity in the terms of a natural phenomenonthe same as equating the deity with that phenomenon? Metaphoricallanguage is such a ubiquitous literary device in ancient writing thatcaution should predominate when such language is applied to deities.The same is even true of modern writing: few lovers mean that their loveinterests are actually flowers or celestial bodies, no matter how appro-priate such language may seem! What I will address below relates to

these two issues: the proposed solar nature of Yahweh and the use ofmetaphorical language to describe a deity.The nature of the evidence presented for the suggested intimate con-

nection between Yahweh and the sun tends to come from 1) inteipreta-tions of archaeological finds, particularly iconographic sources, 2) thesupposed solar alignment of ancient structures of worship; 3) theophoricnames; and 4) biblical texts. Each of these areas has been explored, oftenwith further subdivisions, to glean evidence for the theory of Yahweh asa sun-god. By examining the evidence for these assertions in some detail,the soundness of these theories may be tested.’ Stdhll’s and Taylor’srecent books on the subject contain the most complete argumentationand the strongest suggestions,6 and will therefore be primary sources forconsideration.

Archaeological Finds

It must be asked which archaeological discoveries support a solar inter-pretation of Yahweh. In recent discussions ’horses of the sun’ (usually

5. Recent studies which suggest solar connections, but without going as far asan actual identification, are: Smith, ’Helios in Palestine’ and ’Case of the GildedStaircase’; M.S. Smith, ’"Seeing God" in the Psalms: The Background to the BeatificVision in the Hebrew Bible’, CBQ 50 (1988), pp. 171-83; ’The Near Eastern

Background of Solar Language for Yahweh’, JBL 109 (1990), pp. 29-39 (expandedand reprinted in The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in AncientIsrael [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990], pp. 115-24); E. Lipinski, ’Le culte dusoleil chez les Sémites occident aux du Ier millénaire av. J.-C.’, OLP 22 (1991),pp. 57-72.

6. Stähli, Solare Elemente, and Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun.



91

figurines), a cult stand from Taanach, seals which picture a solar diskand mosaic floors of synagogues have all been presented as evidence. Ishall examine each type of evidence in turn to determine if the claims

made are truly substantiated.The first item to consider is the horses of the sun. Much speculation

has developed over the obscure references to the ’horses which the kingsof Judah dedicated to the sun’ and their accompanying chariots (2 Kgs23.11). The 2 Kings citation is the only biblical reference to such items.Perhaps because of their obscurity, they have been used as evidence bythose who wish to find a connection between Yahweh and solar worship.’It appears obvious that there is some element of solar worship indicatedhere,’ but whether or not it is to be associated with Yahweh is more

difficult to determine.

In 2 Kings Josiah is certainly presented as clearing the temple of itemsoffensive to Yahweh. This, however, does not prove that ’sun horses’were utilized in the worship of Yahweh, but only that they were in thetemple. This in itself does not associate them with Yahweh, since templeswere not the domain of a single deity in the ancient world.’ The verytext of 2 Kings, while admittedly polemical, considers such accretions tothe temple paraphernalia to be foreign.’° This question of the patrondeity of the horses cannot be decided on the basis of the tacit evidencein 2 Kgs 23.11. Nevertheless, the question is raised concerning whether

7. For recent discussions see K. Kenyon, ’The Mystery of the Horses of theSun at the Temple Entrance’, BAR 4.2 (1978), pp. 8-9 (abstracted from Kenyon’sJerusalem excavations); Lipinski, ’Le culte du soleil’, pp. 64-66; J.W. McKay,’Further Light on the Horses and Chariot of the Sun in the Jerusalem Temple(2 Kings 23.11)’, PEQ 105 (1973), pp. 167-69; Smith, ’"Seeing God" in the

Psalms’, pp. 178-79.8. McKay, ’Further Light’, pp. 167-69; T.R. Hobbs, 2 Kings (WBC. 13; Waco:

Word Books, 1985), pp. 334-35.9. B. Alroth, ’Visiting Gods—Who and Why?’, in T. Linders and G. Nordquist

(eds.), Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 (Boreas, 15;Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1987), pp. 9-19, addresses this question.See also the series of articles on ancient temples in BA 7 ( 1944), pp. 41-88, espe-cially H.N. Nelson, ’I. The Egyptian Temple’, p. 44 and A.L. Oppenheim, ’II. The

Mesopotamian Temple’, p. 58.10. M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the

Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), p. 134.



92

or not horse figurines found in ancient Israel indicate that Yahweh was

worshipped as the sun.Taylor presents equine figurines as evidence for solar worship in ancient

Israel. He cites a terracotta quadruped from tenth-century Hazor,&dquo; andvarious horse figurines from eighth- or seventh-century contexts. Here,however, even Taylor admits that such figurines do not provide ’directevidence for linking these horses to sun worship’.’’ His assessment of theevidence here is accurate: there are no cases where these clay figurinesunambiguously portray solar disks on the horses. Thus the horse figurinesfail to make an explicit connection between the worship of the sun andYahweh.

Another piece of evidence supplied by Taylor is the Taanach cultstand. 13 This stand, the original use of which is unknown, was discoveredin 1968 at Taanach.14 It has sparked discussion concerning Asherah aswell as the ’sun god’ .15 Rather than being detained by the identity ofthe female figure on the stand, 16 I wish to turn to Taylor’s remarksconcerning the sun and the stand.

This cult stand has four registers, all of which bear some decoration.The top register portrays a quadruped underneath a circular design. Thesecond register down depicts a ’tree of life’ flanked by goats, the third ishollow in the middle with sphinxes on either side, and the bottom registerdepicts a nude female figure holding onto the ears of lions on either side.Taylor begins his description of the stand by stating that each register

11. Also cited by J. Gray, I and II Kings (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press,1970), pp. 736-37.

12. Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun, pp. 37-40 (Hazor), pp. 58-66 (other figurines).The quotation is from p. 66.

13. The case for the cult stand was previously made in J.G. Taylor, ’The TwoEarliest Representations of Yahweh’, in L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (eds.), Ascribe tothe Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOTSup, 67;Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp. 557-66. It is cited yet again in his recent article,’Was Yahweh Worshipped as the Sun?’.

14. P.W. Lapp, ’The 1968 Excavation at Tell Ta’annek’, BASOR 195 (1969),p. 42.

15. R. Hestrin, ’The Cult Stand from Ta’anach and its Religious Background’, inE. Lipinski (ed.), Studia Phoenicia. V. Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in theFirst Millennium BC. Proceedings of the Conference Held in Leuven 14-16November 1985 (OLA, 22; Louvain: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1987), pp. 61-77, and ’TheLachish Ewer and the ’Asherah’, IEJ 37 (1987), pp. 212-23.

16. I examined this aspect in ’The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and SerpentGoddess’, UF 23 (1991), pp. 383-94.



93

depicts a cultic scene.17 He then argues that the deity represented in thetop and third scenes is Yahweh, while the second and bottom portrayAsherah.&dquo; The next step is to determine that Yahweh is here portrayedwith solar characteristics, and this he does by means of interpreting thecircular design above the quadruped as a stylized solar disk.&dquo;The questions concerning this interpretation begin with the suggestion

that the registers display cultic scenes. The context of the stand was nearother cultic objects; the stand itself was found broken in a shaft orcistern020 This may be evidence that it was a votive offering which waspurposely destroyed, or that it was perhaps discarded for some moremundane reason. That the object was actually used in the cult is difficultto prove, since it shows no signs of smoke or fire.21 Lapp suggests thatit might have been used for libations. 22 This is a classic dilemma: howshould an artifact be interpreted without detailed knowledge of the religi-ous system in which it was used?21 We must be cautious when assigninga cultic significance to an object of unknown function. Given the uncer-tainties concerning the usage of this stand, argumentation based upon itcannot be tenable. We may assume here, for purposes of argumentation,that it is a religious artifact.

Religious artifacts are notorious for their ambiguous symbolism, andthe same may be suggested for this cultic stand. The animals representedon it may have been intended to portray symbolic creatures. It is ques-tionable that the symbolic creatures constitute a ’cultic scene’ as Taylorsuggests. The over-usage of one artifact to reconstruct religious episodesentails a certain amount of speculation, which may be damaging to otherpossible interpretations. 21 Yet the question being asked here is a finerone: is it sound to leap from symbolic ’scenes’ to an argument that the

17. Yahweh and the Sun, p. 25.18. Yahweh and the Sun, pp. 28-29.19. Yahweh and the Sun, pp. 30-36.20. Lapp, ’1968 Excavation’, p. 42.21. Lapp,’ 1968 Excavation’, p. 44.22. Lapp, ’1968 Excavation’, p. 44.23. This aspect of studying ancient religions is stressed by L.K. Handy, Among

the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake,IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), pp. 3-5.

24. This is already the case with the lion ’goddess’ portrayed on the stand.Because of the entirely uncertain identification of the woman represented (we do noteven know that she is a goddess) it cannot reasonably be argued that she is a repre-sentation of Asherah, who is nowhere associated with lions.



94

symbols necessarily represent the deities in whose service the item wasused? This would not appear, prima facie, to be UnreasOllable, yetneither is it a necessary conclusion. More tenuous still is the assertion

that the four registers necessarily represent two deitie,s. The ’tree of life’is a familiar cultic design throughout the ancient Near East, but its con-nection with any one particular deity is not obvious. The same is true ofthe woman with the lions. There is no evidence that this was supposedto represent Asherah, or any other goddess.25 Nor do we know towhich deity(ies) the stand was dedicated, if any. Without this informa-tion the alleged aniconic representation of Yahweh in the third registerloses its force, leaving another familiar motif of the ancient Near East inthe top register: a quadruped and a solar disk. It is also unlikely that thethird register was intended as a picture of an invisible deity, who isrepresented elsewhere on the same artifact by the sun. If the one-three,two-four pattern which Taylor presents breaks down at any one register,his argument loses its force. If Yahweh is not represented in the thirdregister, then which deity does the first register portray, if any’? There isno evidence here that Yahweh, nowhere specifically portrayed, wasworshipped as the sun.Thus even if the cultic stand from Taanach is a cultic implement, there

is no evidence that it was intended to portray specific deities. The motifson the stand are so ubiquitous as to make any certain identificationsimpossible. With no evidence that Yahweh and sun-worship were mixed,we turn now to the seals which are used as evidence for such a fusion.The evidence which is marshalled here is the impressions left by seals

bearing a two-winged ’solar disk’ and the four-winged scarab beetle.Both of these emblems appear to have originated in Egypt. Taylorsupposes these to be variants of the same basic idea, and thus to have acommon origin. He suggests that they were imported into the Judahiteroyal court during the reign of Hezekiah.26 When dealing with thetwo-winged disk, Taylor’s argument becomes somewhat confused. Heargues that the disk has the head and tail of a falcon, but is a sun disknevertheless. When citing a Phoenician parallel, he states that ’althoughcircular, the &dquo;body&dquo; of the falcon on the Phoenician seal cannot beinterpreted as a sun disk because, although almost imperceptible, smalllegs protrude from the disk-like body’ .2’ This then begs the question of

25. Wiggins, ’Myth of Asherah’, pp. 384-86.26. Yahweh and the Sun, pp. 46-47.27. Yahweh and the Sun, pp. 49 n. 3.



95

whether a falcon is represented on the Palestinian seals: if bird featuresdiscount a solar interpretation of some seals (especially those outside ofthe area covered by the proposed theory), why do they not discountothers?

In consideration of the four-winged beetle seals, Taylor is undoubtedlycorrect in seeing a solar connection between the beetle and the sun. He

interprets both the two-winged and four-winged emblems to be sym-bolic of Horus of Edfu, since both were represented with a falcon’shead. This particular interpretation may be correct, but the suggestionthat this provides evidence that Yahweh was a solar deity stretches theevidence to extremes. To assume that a symbol of Horus of Edfu wouldhave been taken over, with its full significance unchanged, by a Yahwisticking requires significant substantiation. Taylor himself admits that theremay be no solar connection intended in the borrowing of these motifsby a king in Judah,&dquo; but this does not prevent him from arguing forsuch a solar connection. When this neutral piece of evidence is placednext to the horses and the Tanaach cult stand, it still adds up to no

evidence for a solar understanding of Yahweh.Stdhli presents an archaeological piece of evidence for a solar under-

standing of Yahweh in the mosaic floors of synagogues. In particular hesingles out the Beth-Alpha synagogue which has a representation of thesun-chariot in the floor .2’ This he explores and finds no sufficient expla-nation until after looking at other evidence. When considered from theperspective of the biblical texts examined in his book, he finds that theunderstanding ’of the image of the &dquo;sun&dquo; as idolatry in the Hellenisticstyle of representation had no place (with good reason) in the syna-gogue,.30 The sun-chariot, in the light of the rest of his argument, repre-sented Yahweh as the keeper of order.3’

Here again we have a piece of evidence, which when weighed on itsown merits, leads to no connection between Yahweh and the sun. It is alate motif (from the sixth century CE) which betrays Hellenistic influence.The only matter which would seem to require comment is the adoptionof a Hellenistic emblem in a synagogue, but this in no way implies thatYahweh is here portrayed as a solar deity.

28. Yahweh and the Sun, pp. 53, 55.29. Stähli, Solare Elemente, p. 1; also cited by Lipinski, ’Le culte du soleil’,

pp. 65-66.30. Stähli, Solare Elemente, p. 49; my translation.31. Stähli, Solare Elemente, p. 50.



96

Thus it is clear that when the archaeological evidence of a solar under-

standing of Yahweh is removed from the theories, it does not obviouslysuggest such an interpretation. Some of the evidence points to solarworship, but this is also reflected in the biblical texts themselves. What isiiot indicated is that Yahweh was understood to be a representation of,or was worshipped as, the sun.A final aspect of archaeological finds garnered for support of a solar

understanding of Yahweh is the alignment of temples with the sun. It isthis argument to which I turn next.

Solar Alignment of tlre Temple

Arguments for the solar significance of temples are quite old and are notlimited to the Near East. 32 When Taylor considers previous studies ofsolar alignment of various structures in ancient Israel, he comes to anegative conclusion. The evidence does not fit the schemes of the pre-vious theorists. Still, he believes that ’examination of the biblical materialwill offer strong support for the influence of solar elements at the timeof the construction of the temple’.3~ When the biblical material is dis-cussed, however, he comes once more to the conclusion that the evidenceis ambiguous. Given the fact that modern scholars cannot know theactual alignment of the temple, he suggests that ‘Although the preciseangle of the temple remains the critical unknown factor, it is nonethelesspossible in light of a rough date to work the other way round byestimating what the angle of the temple would be if it were aligned tothe sun relative to both the Mount of Olives and the Feast of Booths. 34This provides no evidence since it presupposes a solar alignment.Even with the suggested evidence of 1 Kings 8 and Ezek. 8.16, the

only proof for an orientation towards the sun comes from the theory,not the evidence. Earlier studies performed trigonometric gymnastics toexpose a side, any side, of Solomon’s temple to the east.35 Any building,

32. F.J. Hollis, ’The Sun-Cult and the Temple at Jerusalem’, in S.H. Hooke (ed.),Myth and Ritual of the Hebrews in relation to the Culture Pattern of the Ancient East(London: Oxford University Press, 1933), pp. 87-110. Smith, ’The Case of theGilded Staircase’, pp. 50-55, and ’Helios in Palestine’, pp. 199-214, finds evidencefor such an understanding at Qumran, while Conder, ’Sun Worship in Syria’, p. 81,cites ’rude stone temples of our own country’ (Britain).

33. Yahweh and the Sun, p. 85.34. Yahweh and the Sun, p. 162.35. See, for example, the figures in Hollis, ’The Sun-Cult’.



97

unless a corner faces due east, is going to have some solar exposure onthe eastern side, unless it is blocked. This cannot be considered archaeo-

logical evidence for a solar alignment of Solomon’s temple. Once againwe find that there is a telling lack of evidence to corroborate a theory ofYahweh’s identification with the sun. A final piece of evidence proposedbefore the biblical texts are considered is that of theophoric names withsolar elements.

Theophoric Names

Both Stdhli and Taylor use the evidence of theophoric names to garnerevidence for a solar interpretation of Yahweh.36 Since Taylor critiquesthe dubious names proposed by Stdhli, there is no need to redo his workhere. Still Taylor sees evidence for a solar Yahwism in the names yhwzrhand §llryfi in extrabiblical epigraphic sources and in the biblical namesbased on the same roots. Yhrvzrh he renders as ’Yahweh has shoneforth’, noting that the element zrh occurs otherwise generally only of thesun: ’apart from cases in which the verb describes the action of Yahwehor his glory (kab6d), the verb zrh, &dquo;rise, shine forth&dquo;, is used almost

exclusively of the action of the sun’ .37 His statement here is tentative,and in a footnote he cites references which point to other usages of theverb zrh. Also, if the term is used of Yahweh’s glory, to suggest that thisis not evidence for other than solar usage begs the question.The name ~hryh provides no further evidence for a Yahwistic solar

connection. Since it may be rendered ’Yahweh is Shahar’ or simply’Yahweh is dawn’, it would appear to be evidence for a connection onlywith the deity Shahar, if any. It is a dubious practice to use theophoricnames in order to discern fine points of ancient theology. Taylor himselfis sceptical of the weight that should be given to this evidence as well:’evidence about Israelite religion that is based upon personal namesalone is tenuous and uncertain at best’.3g Thus far, we have found,extrabiblical evidence fails to support a solar understanding of Yahweh.

Biblical Passages

By far the most evidence marshalled for a solar interpretation ofYahweh comes from the Bible itself. As even a cursory overview of the

36. Stähli, Solare Elemente, pp. 40-41; Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun, pp. 88-91.37. Yahweh and the Sun, p. 89.38. Yahweh and the Sun, p. 91.



98

secondary literature demonstrates, over half of the Old Testament booksare cited as containing potential clues. This type of evidence becomescrucial to the theory of a solar connection with Yahweh since extra-biblical material does not offer any substantial proof. The sheer volumeof these alleged proofs is too large to consider in their entirety here;instead it would be useful to consider them categorically. The passagessuggesting such a connection fall into four basic categories: 1 ) pericopeswhich use metaphorical language reminiscent of the sun for Yahweh; 2)passages which utilize verbs with ’Yahweh’ which also describe activities

of the sun; 3) places where the timing of God’s action is propitious withrelation to the sun; and 4) verses concerning the temple cult which seemto have a solar significance. I shall now briefly consider each type ofreference with some representative examples.

1. Solar Metaphorical LanguageIn this category are those verses which use language of the sun as aliterary device to refer to Yahweh. There are relatively few examples ofthis kind of language,39 but two of the most celebrated references arePss. 19.5c-7 and 84.12a.

Ps. 19.5c-7 reads,

A tent for the sun he placed in them [the heavens].(6) He, like a bridegroom coming out of his canopy,rejoices like a warrior to run his path.(7) His coming out is from the end of the heavens,and his circuit is to the other end.

And nothing is hidden from his heat.

Sarna’s study of this psalm freely acknowledges the borrowing of foreignsolar imagery, and concludes that the psalm is an anti-sun-god polemic. 40Although polemical language is not obvious, the solar imagery is. Thegrammatical difficulties of the psalm make deciphering the meaningtenuous. God (El) is mentioned in v. 2, and is not mentioned againbefore v. 5. Since the hymn prior to v. 5 extols El’s creative activity, thesubject of the verb sam (’he placed’) is presumably God. The subject inv. 6 has apparently switched to the sun, since the activities in vv. 6-7are characteristic of the sun. The poetic nature of these verses leaves

39. Smith, Early History, p. 115.40. N. Sarna, ’Psalm xix and the Near Eastern Sun-God Literature’, in Fourth

World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers (Jerusalem: World Union of JewishStudies, 1967), pp. 171-75.



99

room for some doubt concerning the subject, although a solar context isobvious.

No matter whether the subject of vv. 6-7 is God or the sun, the

language used in these verses is metaphorical. The subject is like a bride-groom and a warrior. A simile implies comparison, not identity, betweenthe subject and the object of comparison. The point is that both sharesome characteristic, here the freshness of a newlywed or the strength ofa warrior. Nothing in these verses suggests that God or the sun wasactually recently married or was a hero preparing for a race.

Ps. 84.12a has frequently been cited by proponents of solar Yahwism.It reads, ’For Yahweh Elohim is a sun and shield.’ This is another

instance of metaphorical language. The argument that Yahweh is herecompared to the sun and was therefore conceived of as the sun, does nottake the metaphor into account. God is not being equated with the sun,but rather being compared to it. The psalmist no more means that Yahwehis the sun in the sky than he means that the shield by his side is Yahweh.To suggest identity is to ignore meaning as expressed by metaphor.

2. Verbs Describing Solar Activitie.sIn this category are those verses which use language descriptive of solaractivity with Yahweh. The most persuasive examples are those which usethe verb zrh (e.g. Deut. 33.2), those which extol Yahweh’s giving of light(e.g. Ps. 118.27) and verses which record Yahweh coming from the east(e.g. Ezek. 43.2). Other facets of solar activity could be cited here, butthey are not as convincing as these since there are obvious explanationsfor their utilization.

Deut. 33.2a-b reads,

Yahweh came out from Sinai,and he rose from Seir upon him,he shone from Mount Paran,he came from Ribbot-Qodesh. 41

This particular verse is important for this discussion because it utilizesthe verb zrh, ’he rose’, in reference to Yahweh. Taylor points out thatthis verb ’is used almost exclusively of the action of the sun’ .42 The factthat it is used of the appearance of leprosy in 2 Chron. 26.19 should signal

41. Since 33.2c has a textual difficulty which would impede any understandingfor the verse as a whole, I have translated only the relevant first two sections of theverse here.

42. Yahweh and the Sun, p. 89.



100

caution for any absolute assertion of connotation. The root meaning ofzrb seems to be ’coming forth, rising’.~’~ The fact that Yahweh does this,along with the sun and disease, does not indicate that God is to be

equated with either. The parallel word hn>py< (hiplzil of the root ypC), ’heshone’, lends no support to a solar connotation, since it is used almost

exclusively of Yahweh, and never of the sun.Ps. 118.27a states, ’Yahweh is God, he gives light to us’ (the remainder

of the verse instructs pilgrims to bind branches to the altar). Not onlyhas this psalm been considered a source of direct information regardingYahweh and the sun, it has also been used to provide information aboutthe alleged enthronement ritual of Yahweh, which is supposed to havetranspired at the autumnal equinox.&dquo; The suggestion that Yahweh pro-vides light undoubtedly stems from the illuminating power of the sun.The question which must be addressed here, however, is if this colon ismeant to be taken as a literal or as a figurative statement. There can belittle doubt that the statement is metaphorical, and thus comes under thesame category as passages which use solar characteristics to describeYahweh, discussed above. The sun proves a useful standard for compari-son, but the psalm does not provide proof for a perceived connectionbetween Yahweh and the sun. This psalm’s weight as evidence vanisheswhen it is acknowledged that the force of the argument is simply itssupposed association with an enthronement ritual. We know nothing ofthis alleged ritual in Israel, not least even if it was ever practiced. If thereis no evidence for the ritual here, then there is no reason to find a solarconnection with Yahweh in the psalm.

Perhaps the most convincing of the solar actions ascribed to Yahwehis God’s arrival from the east, as in Ezek. 43.2: ’And look! The glory ofthe God of Israel came from the direction of the east, and his voice waslike the sound of many waters, and the earth shone with his glory.’ Inthis particular passage, however, there is a reasonable alternative for thissymbolic return of Yahweh. Ezekiel is here envisioning the Jerusalem ofthe restoration. To anyone living in Jerusalem, Yahweh, the God of theexiles, would have had to have come from the east to return from

Babylon to the temple. Likewise in other passages where Yahwehapproaches from the east there are logical reasons for his approach fromthat direction other than a solar identification.

43. BDB, p. 280a.44. H.G. May, ’Some Aspects of Solar Worship at Jerusalem’, ZAW 55 (1937),

pp. 276-77.



101

3. Places Where the Timing of God’s Actioll is Propitious withRelation to the Sun

In this category are passages where Yahweh’s action concurs with the

activity of the sun. Some examples are Gen. 19.23; Exod. 17.8; and Ps.46.6.

Gen. 19.23 concerns the destruction of Sodom and the cities of the

plain. It reads, ’The sun came out upon the earth and Lot entered Zoar.’Here Stdhli notes that God’s judgment came with the rising of the sun.’5Since God sent down fiery brimstone at dawn, does this not suggest thatGod is the sun? Another explanation is possible for this account. In thecontext of the story, it is already dawn when Lot and his family leaveSodom. Zoar is far enough away from the cities not to be destroyedwith them. In other words, the time at which the destruction occurredwas not precisely sunrise, but when ’the sun came out upon the earth’;here presented as being somewhat later in the morning. Also in the con-text of this story, Yahweh could not destroy the cities of the plain beforethat time or else Lot, who delayed leaving all night, would have beendestroyed with them. This example does not necessarily equate Yahwehwith the sun.

Exod. 17.12 recounts Israel’s battle with the Amalekites: ’And Moses’hands became heavy and they took a stone and placed it under him andhe sat upon it. Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one each, and it

happened that his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.’Here God’s victory over the Amalekites coincides with sunset, and thussuggests that Yahweh acts at the timing of the sun.&dquo; Again, anotherplausible explanation exists: the battle naturally ended with sunset, sinceit was then too dark to continue active warfare. 41 Sunset would be a

strange idiom to equate the sun with Yahweh, since we should supposethat when God was waning, the Amalekites should begin to havevictory. 0

Ps 46.6 reads,

God is within her [the city],she will not be moved;

God will help her,at the turning of morning.

45. Stähli, Solare Elemente, p. 35.46. Stähli, Solare Elemente, p. 35.47. Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological

Discovery (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1963), pp. 110-11.



102

This is perhaps the most convincing of the examples, since God’s help,in a general sense, arrives in the morning.4R Why would the psalmistchoose morning if not because God was appearing then (in the form ofthe sun)? Another possible explanation for God’s early help is the viewfrom the opposite perspective: God’s help comes in the morning whenpeople are awake to appreciate from whence their deliverance has come.Not only does the sun rise in the morning, but human activity beginsagain in the morning. Without the support of the other examples, thesuggestion that God’s help coming in the morning identifies Yahwehwith the sun loses its force.

4. Verses concerning the Temple Cult which Seem to Have a SolarSignificanceThis category includes those verses which have been farmed for hints ofa hidden solar Yahwism in the temple cult. I Chron. 28.18; 2 Kgs 23.11;and Ezek. 8.16 are the best examples.

I Chron. 28.18 ends a list of temple implements: ’also to the altar ofincense, its weight in refined gold; and to the pattern of the chariot, thegolden cherubim spreading and covering the ark of the covenant ofYahweh’. The cherubim chariot in the inner sanctum has been comparedwith the solar chariot, on the basis of Ezekiel’s vision.49 The associationwith the sun here begs the question of who is riding in the ’chariot’. Isthe sun the only deity to use a chariot for locomotion? It seems likelythat Baal’s title, rkb crpt, implies ’charioteer of the clouds’. 50 Anat is alsoportrayed as riding a chariot.5’

In addition to this question, there is also the discrepancy between thisparticular verse and the passages actually describing the holy of holies in1 Kgs 6.23-28 and 2 Chron. 3.10-14, where no chariot is mentioned. Itwould seem that the mention of the chariot is a carry-over from a scribefamiliar with Ezekiel’s vision. 12

48. Stähli, Solare Elemente, p. 38.49. Lipinski, ’Le culte du soleil’, p. 65.50. N. Wyatt, ’The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God’, UF 24 (1992), pp. 420-

21.

51. Wyatt, ’Titles’, p. 421.52. S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY:

Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), p. 497; J.M. Myers, I Chronicles:Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965),p. 193.



103

An often-cited passage with an obvious temple-sun connection is2 Kgs 23.11: ’And he removed the horses which the kings of Judah had

given to the sun from the entrance of the house of Yahweh, to the hallsof Nathan-Melek the eunuch, which is among the colonnades, and thechariots of the sun he burned with fire’ (this verse has been discussed

above). In addition to the ’horses of the sun’ mentioned here, othercultic implements of the Solomonic temple have been vested with solar

significance by modern scholars. The two pillars erected at the entranceof the temple, as well as the altars of Manasseh in the court, have beenunderstood as having a connection with the sun. 13 These implications,however, are based on comparisons with foreign practices, and areentirely without textual support for the Jerusalem temple. In addition,the solar connection (which is not obvious for pillars or altars) is onlyone possible explanation for these objects. Altars bring to mind sacrificeand not necessarily the sun. Pillars point skyward, and thus may suggestthe sun. They may, however, suggest other heavenly objects as well: themoon and stars, or even the clouds which give rain. Even if these imple-ments did have solar associations, this would not indicate that Yahweh

and the sun were identified. They may point toward the realm of thesun, but that is only one half of the equation.

Ezek. 8.16 is the trump card in the hand of those wagering for a solarconnection with Yahweh. 54 Here a passage explicitly connects thetemple and sun worship-or does it? It reads, ’And he brought me in tothe inner court of the house of Yahweh, and look! At the doorway ofthe temple of Yahweh between the porch and the altar twenty-five menwith their backs to the temple of Yahweh and their faces towards theeast and they were bowing eastward towards the sun.’ The point beingmade by the prophet is not only that sun worship is being practiced, butthat the men have turned their backs on the temple, which for Ezekielrepresents the presence of Yahweh. This would be diametrically opposedto associating the sun and Yahweh, since the very point of the passage isthat Yahweh has been neglected for the sun.Thus in each of these four categories biblical evidence for a solar

aspect of Yahweh is not convincing. Either the language is metaphoricalor else there is another explanation for the imagery.

53. May, ’Some Aspects’, pp. 269, 271.54. Lipinski, ’Le culte du soleil’, p. 66; Stähli, Solare Elemente, p. 9.



104

5. Other Considerations

In addition to these four categories, Psalm 104 deserves a special mentionsince it overtly uses solar imagery. Psalm 104 has often been cited as avestige of Egyptian sun-worship in Israel. There is no serious reason todispute some connection of this psalm with Akhenaten’s hymn to theAton.55 As Dion has pointed out, however, ’The author of Psalm 104finds his Amarnian source useful in elaborating upon the positive aspectsof YHWH’s storm-god attributes...but he avoids any suggestion of privi-leged relations between YHWH and the sun. 56 Dion’s remarks have arelevance to be kept in mind as biblical passages are examined: simplybecause solar language may be used of Yahweh or his activities, it doesnot prove, or even imply, that Yahweh was equated with, or representedby, the sun.A final passage to consider is 1 Kgs 8.12, as cited by Taylor. The

passage, according to Taylor, cannot be taken as written: ’Then Solomonsaid, &dquo;Yahweh said ‘[I chose] to dwell in thick darkness&dquo;’ ’, but must betaken according to the the LXX rendering:

Then Solomon said:

’Sun he placed in the heavens,But Yahweh himself has decided to dwell in thick cloud’

(Taylor’s translation).

Taylor states, ’biblical passages such as 1 Kgs 8.12 which distinguishbetyneen YalTwell and the sun do not necessarily imply that there wa.s 110relationship between tlle God of Israel and SU11, nor do they imply tl2cctYahweh could not have been understood in .solar ternt,s’.5’ Thedifficulties with this position are numerous. First, the evidence to whichTaylor points-namely, that God as creator of the sun was not neces-sarily distinguished from the sun-presents a corollary which Taylordoes not consider: this could be applied equally to all things with whichYahweh is credited as creating. If the sun, which is made by Yahweh,may be a representation of him, why not other objects which he is con-sidered to have created’? Is the moon a representation of Yahweh as

55. This connection has been called into question as well. See P.C. Craigie, ’TheComparison of Hebrew Poetry: Psalm 104 in the Light of Egyptian and UgariticPoetry’, Semitics 4 (1974), pp. 10-15. A translation may be conveniently found inANET, pp. 369-371.

56. P.E. Dion, ’YHWH as Storm-god and Sun-god: The Double Legacy of Egyptand Canaan as Reflected in Psalm 104’, ZA W 103 (1991), p. 65.

57. Yahweh and the Sun, p. 141, emphasis Taylor’s.



105

well ?58 Further, are human beings simply a figure of the divine, sincethey are after all created in the image of God’? Finally, there is nothingto stop us from taking the next logical step: the birds, fish and beasts, aswell as the earth upon which they exist, could also be a representation ofYahweh, according to this line of argumentation. In short, Taylor haspresented us with an Israelite pantheism. If this is indeed the case, wewould have no grounds to quibble, but it seems foreign to the conceptof God as presented in the Hebrew Bible.

Secondly, if such passages do distinguish between Yahweh and thesun, how can it be argued that this is not what they intended to do? Itmay be that later editorial activity was intended to mask this connection,but Taylor argues that the passage under discussion is archaic, and thattherefore the distinction is original. Why would the writer make the dis-tinction if it is a false one? Would the author have juxtaposed Yahwehand the sun to indicate that they were the same by stating that onecreated the other?

Thirdly, the argument here is based on an implication and not a fact:’nor do they imply that Yahweh could not have been understood insolar terms’ .59 The only way to make the assertion which Taylor thenmakes is with a healthy portion of conjecture which is based on an

implication of an obscure text. This does not constitute sound evidence.It is obvious that when passages used to support solar-Yahwism are

examined individually they lose their force. Their failure to convincemust indicate that either a solar-Yahwistic cult was completely hidden bylater redactors, or that it did not exist at all.

Conclusion

Like many of the modern reconstructions of ancient Israelite religionbased on multivalent archaeological artifacts and strained interpretationsof obscure biblical passages, the identification of Yahweh with thesun fades when it is examined closely. This is not to deny that sunworship may have been a part of ancient Israelite religion, but it is tosuggest that when uncertain evidence is pressed too far it produces tenu-ous hypotheses. Although archaeology continues to add to our under-standing of life in ancient Israel, until those finds which are of uncertain

58. Taylor does not deny that this may be a possibility, as the moon is simply asmaller reflection of the sun (Yahweh and the Sun, p. 232 n. 1).

59. Yahweh and the Sun, p. 141 (emphasis mine).



106

intention are treated properly, we will face many idiosyncratic interpre-tations. Neither archaeology nor biblical texts, when considered on theirown merits, suggest that Yahweh was ever considered to be manifestedas the sun. It is to be hoped that future discoveries in both fields willshed yet further light on this issue.

ABSTRACT

This article is an attempt to demonstrate that many unwarranted assumptions havebeen made regarding the identification of Yahweh with the sun. Four primary areasof evidence used to argue for solar-Yahwism are re-examined. The first area of

evidence is archaeological finds; these are noted as being often ambiguous. Thesecond piece of evidence is the alleged solar alignment of Solomon’s temple. Thethird set of evidence comes from theophoric names with solar elements which are oflimited information for ancient religion. Biblical passages which refer to Yahweh andthe sun are the fourth area explored. Alternative explanations are offered for eachpassage.



Documents

Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentTaylor, Yahweh and the Sun, pp. 37-40 (Hazor), pp. 58-66 (other figurines). The quotation is from p. 66. 13. The case for the cult stand was